Monsanto CEO ‘We Need to Do More’ to Win GMO Debate

Proposals to require labels for foods containing genetically modified ingredients so far have a spotty record at the ballot box. Another defeat arrived Tuesday in St. Louis, this time at the annual shareholder meeting of Monsanto Co.

Investors in the GMO seed maker overwhelmingly rejected a shareholder proposal that would have pushed Monsanto to get behind labeling efforts itself – after it spent millions lobbying against such measures at the state level. Only about 4% of Monsanto shares were voted in support of the effort.

The shoot-the-moon proposal did, however, bring Monsanto Chief Executive Hugh Grant to personally debate some fierce critics of his company’s business practices – something he acknowledged Monsanto hasn’t done much of in the past.

“We simply haven’t engaged enough at the level we should have with all of our audiences, and for that, we apologize,” Mr. Grant said at the meeting. “There’s a recognition we need to do more.”

As anti-GMO protesters rallied near the event among cars festooned with giant, grinning vegetables, Mr. Grant got his chance at such engagement. He faced critiques during the meeting from a handful of consumer advocates who derided the company for promoting pesticide use and using its influence to shroud food origins in mystery. The advocates said they represented owners of Monsanto stock.

Shareholder efforts to wrangle Monsanto’s support for GMO labeling come as advocates of such measures battle state-to-state against agricultural and packaged-food companies, which have argued that such measures will raise the cost of food and unfairly give the impression that crops grown with genetics designed to withstand weedkillers and pesticides are not safe.

New Hampshire legislators last week became the latest state to reject such a measure, following the defeat of a highly contentious ballot initiative in Washington state in November. Maine and Connecticut, meanwhile, in recent months have passed laws requiring such labels, though these don’t go into effect until other states approve similar measures. Proposals are pending in other states as well.

“Right now there’s a growing movement to label genetically modified food,” said Dave Murphy, executive director of Food Democracy Now!, who presented the labeling proposal at Monsanto’s meeting Tuesday. “Monsanto has chosen unfortunately to resist the rights of American people.”

Mr. Grant responded that Monsanto supports “voluntary” labeling of foods produced with genetically modified ingredients. That approach, he said, is fairer to consumers who aren’t as concerned about the genetics of the grain that goes into their cereal or feeds cattle that yield a particular steak.

The shareholder meeting – the company’s first to be broadcast via the Internet – also brought out Monsanto supporters.

Justin Danhof, general counsel for the National Center for Public Policy Research, criticized what he called a “campaign of junk science” against biotech foods. He urged Monsanto to go on the offensive and enlist its scientists as spokespeople on talk radio and other media to “explain the issues and take questions from the public.”

Comments (5 of 17)

Eric wrote:
Heres a thought. If labeling makes such a big difference than the non GMO companies should label themselves as such. Unfortunately they wont, because the point here is to try and label GMO’s as bad (without evidence), while helping themselves by default

Eric -- this is the part you need to understand... A Monsanto man named Michael R. Taylor is head of food safety at the FDA. The reason many organic companies can't label their products is because Mr. Taylor says that saying you DON'T have GMO's in your produce is the same as IMPLYING SOMETHING IS WRONG with GMO's. The Monsanto people don't want anyone to see any difference in GMO products, or in products for instance that use the growth hormone rBGH to say they don't use these types of things because they are afraid that saying so "implies" something is wrong with GMO and other chemicals and hormones they use.

That is a big part of the problem.

Additionally, the same FDA protects GMO companies by making it very expensive to prove that foods are clean here in the USA. Remarkably, many of the same companies selling GMO foods in the USA manage to find ways to produce nonGMO food for sale all over Europe.

I've sat in on these meetings with folks talking about profits and if it was not profitable they would stop selling in Europe... but they figured it out....

1:45 pm July 28, 2014

Agnes wrote:

When you see the abundant array and continued success of the many fried fast food establishments that are all over the USA... it becomes OBVIOUS that there is a market for bad foods that are dangerous to your health. The thing most people like is the concept of transparency and the feeling of making their own choices. People will smoke cigarettes, and do a lot of dangerous things when they have free choice to do so.

By NOT LABELING the bio/GMO chemical companies have taken away that free choice... and by trying to insist that these foods with a PATENT (which means something about them is unique and different) are not different... now it just seems like you are pushing a great big LIE on everyone... so instead of having willing customers now people are afraid of the lies you tell.

Whoever you have in your marketing department that keeps insisting that you continue with a lack of transparency is killing your company and your reputation.

You need to fire that entire marketing department and just label GMO food.

4:56 pm February 8, 2014

Ledger wrote:

To Eric: There actually is scientific evidence available online at the International Journal of Biological Studies. You can view it here: http://www.ijbs.com/v05p0706.htm It's not a hard test to try - feed one group of rats GMO feed, feed another group conventional. The study showed an array of effects ranging from infertility to various cancers. GMOs are not safe, it's time to not just label them, but ban them altogether.

4:06 pm February 6, 2014

Elizabeth England wrote:

I personally want to know when a product I purchase is sourced from a genetically modified seed, whether the label says 'Non-gmo" of "GMO" makes no difference to me. Just label it and let the consumer decide.

10:37 am January 31, 2014

GP wrote:

If 2 billion dollars buys 4% of the stock then socially responsible billionaires can change the world by buying up stock in companies like Monsanto and voting for new policies.